Tag Archives: male nature

2326. Two-man Debate

Scotty b. at 2324 disagrees with me. His ‘apples’ describe how women and especially men think in the marketplace today. My ‘oranges’ describe how the male and female natures are born differently. He describes how men expect women to abandon their female nature in order to please men. I describe how women protect their best interest by following their nature and influencing men to honor female values, standards, and expectations.

His comments are bolded, mine are not.

“I disagree with your foundational proposition that women should artificially make men wait as long as possible for sex. I don’t believe that the sex can then ever live up to the time, work, and emotional investment proffered by the man.”

Your proposition is that men invest themselves in a woman for some quantity and quality of sex; it’s their prime motive. First, I don’t believe that to be part of the male nature; lessons learned from other men perhaps, but learned neither from women nor the inborn male nature. Second, women are far better for other than just sex. Their natural qualities are superbly fashioned to provide the worthy care and support of men, a man, and a mate.

Men who can’t admit that—which seems a popular theme in the Manosphere—betray their own gender as possible mates. If they can’t respect women, it’s a sure indication they lack self-respect as good men, which makes them undesirable, undependable, and irresponsible to women who seek to mate with a good man.

My foundational proposition is that a female can never know the honesty and sincerity of a man’s claim to love her until she examines his character closely over time. The most reliable way balances her strong resistance against his insistence to achieve their first sex together (aka hunter-conqueror’s conquest). Only from that balance can she identify and evaluate his true character and what it means and he offers for her future. How well will his character fit in with fulfillment of her hopes and dreams?

Repeated denial of conquest forces him to decide if she’s worth his effort or not. If not, she wins by finding out now rather than later. Or, he decides she’s worth more than just for sex. In which case, he searches for weaknesses and tries ever harder to bed her but with different results. She’s now in the process of being able to win but in her way.

In the try-harder process, he discovers other qualities that he admires (virtues to him). Seeking to marry a virtuous woman, which is an indirect expectation of the male nature, he teaches himself that she has promise to help and support him in his ambitions and endeavors. It’s his final step to finding a good woman and her first step to fulfillment of hopes and dreams.

IOW, his unrewarded chasing her for conquest both invests himself in her and adds value to her as possible mate. OTOH, whenever conquest happens, it ends his search for more virtues, because he has proven himself worthy of her by her yielding her greatest asset. She becomes either a keeper, booty, or dumpee.

Thus, conquest frees him to conquer someone else, unless he found enough virtues that qualify her for mating. If he stays with her, she must be worth it. In which case, she seems to finally win from all those denials for earlier conquest. If they marry, it’s a different ballgame and one that she is quite capable of managing because her nature is superior for doing just that.

“In most cases, this leads to the man harboring tremendous resentment and never again fully trusting her authenticity. He will always wonder if she is once again making him jump through hoops for no legitimate reason.”

Men harbor “tremendous resentment” because a woman chooses not to honor a man’s request for sex? Therefore, she can’t be authentic? You’re saying that denial of sex is not a legitimate course of action for a woman? Men don’t have to honor the values, standards, and expectations of women? Sex reigns as universally available? Women have to follow the man’s game—promiscuity—in order to earn the appreciation of men? Why are women expected only to select which men and not whether to yield or not? What happened to we’re all created equal, the concept that fosters mutual respect between both genders and individuals?

“Further, that strategy [of denying conquest] often leaves the women firmly in control of the relationship – something women think and say they want…. Yet, if you ask a woman to describe the time she was most in Love, that depiction will NEVER include so much as a hint of her being in control of the relationship. Not ever.”

Love and conquest are not equals, the same, or even close as partners within the female motivational force. Denying conquest is defensive. Loving someone is offensive. When they contradict in the female mind, she consciously chooses the one most important to her self-interest. It’s rational thinking, much like men use to make good decisions. Do modern men find it impermissible for modern women?

“Men, as you correctly assert, fall in love primarily by visual stimulation. Thus, they mostly become more in Love in the presence of the One they Love.”

I disagree. In the presence of the one he loves but has not conquered, the male nature keeps his thoughts dedicated to uncovering her weaknesses to expedite getting her into bed. He may proclaim his undying love, but that is not the same as becoming more in love with her. His love grows from his investment of self to please himself by pleasing her. Trying to get her to yield does not please her when her expectations are against it.

“Women primarily fall in Love outside of the presence of the One they Love.”

I disagree again. Discounting infatuation, a woman’s love happens over the course of several encounters. She has to decide several things that involve the prolific use of her curiosity, imagination, and judgment. Is he worthy? Is he responsible? Dependable enough? Are his words reliable, match his actions? What red flags does she have to accept or reject? Is he a potential temp or permanent? How does he fit inside her strategy for fulfilling her hopes and dreams? And ad infinitum.

“It is a scientific fact that women are more attracted to a man whose feelings are unclear. Women’s emotions are anchored and grow deeper while they remain uncertain if he loves and cares for them reciprocally.”

I tend to agree except I doubt the “scientific fact.” His unclear feelings throw up a challenge to her. It fires up her curiosity and imagination, and those are the faculties by which she also falls in love. So, it can happen as you describe.

“Their Love deepens as they discuss their last date with their girlfriends, as they analyze him, and as they strategize how to capture the Love of the One they Want.”

True. What women express verbally they tend to believe accordingly.

“It is women not men who need, and crave, the ‘hunt’ and the process of falling in Love and the thrill of strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.”

You have mixed up the roles. Men and not women are hunter-conquerors, although modern women are habitually disproving it by acting more like men than following their female nature. Yes, women do love the thrill of “strategically maneuvering until she wins over the Man she Desires.” I acknowledge that men hunt and women maneuver.

“In this post, the “superior gender” is a dangerous phrase. ‘Superior’ is neither accurate nor supportive of your ideals. Applied to, and internalized by, either males or females, that adjective has the potential to do great harm. Do you really believe one gender is superior to the other?!?”

I counter with this from article 2213 posted 5/23/2015:

Superior Sex vs. Dominant Sex. On the macro scale of human behavior, we see a superior sex and irresistible force versus a dominant sex and immovable object. However, God designs the genders such that the immovable becomes moveable with irresistible female leveraging of sexual availability. That is, men do whatever women require in order for men to have frequent and convenient access to sex.

On the other hand, the irresistible female force becomes resistible under the influence of masculine strength to get what men want. Women do whatever men require in order for women to enjoy the fruits of manly producing, providing, protecting, and problem solving on behalf of women and children.

It’s a swap meet. Irresistible and immovable both yield voluntarily to reciprocal loyalty and likeability when surrounded by affirmation, accommodation, and affection. Consequently, their competing powers balance and cooperate to form compatibly successful relationships under management of relationship experts (aka women).

“With those items noted, I thank you and appreciate your blog. Though I disagree with the above items, it does not change my appreciation for your hard work, clever writing style, attention to detail and the ideas you convey. Thank you.”

And I thank you for the compliment of providing such attention to detail. Let the debate continue.


Filed under courtship, feminine, sex differences

2271. Dark Side of Feminism: The Swamp of Ill-feeling

I aim at the gender level, ladies, so don’t take it personal except the sentence surrounded by asterisks.

The male and female natures inherited at birth have been socialized and domesticated into habits that work contrary to how we are born. Default conditions are ignored because of pressures designed by political activists. I don’t alibi for either sex but blame Feminism to explain how and why compatibility has sunk into the swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.

Feminists taught women to blame men for female problems. Doing so put women in the role of acting contrary to their nature, contrary to where their heart leads them. *As the direct response, single women soften their natural hard-headedness and married women harden their soft-heartedness.*

Men aren’t as much offended as they are disappointed in females. Men think: I want to cooperate but with all the crap you pull, why should I?

As women go so goes society and we all do what makes us feel good about ourselves; women do it with little regard for how it registers with men. The combination causes men to harden up their hard-headedness and refuse to soften up their natural hard-heartedness. Men are disappointed because they are discouraged from being heroes to the opposite sex, which gives every indication of being in distress but undeserving of masculine help.

Feminism changed all women; it’s now a universal spirit. Women can’t resist being convinced that they deserve better than whatever men produce and provide. They measure men by how men treat them instead of how men measure themselves by what they accomplish. That difference rocks compatibility.

Adopting feminist thought, women don’t or can’t abandon their natural motivational baseline, which bastardizes their motivational drive and produces results that further confuse the female mind, and which earns disrespect in the male mind.

She tries to bond with sex but men don’t. She abandons modesty to be liked and men don’t respect her. She forgoes mystery that fires up the male imagination and favors full disclosure that kills male curiosity. She expects boyfriend to be loyal to her but she doesn’t first earn his respect. She expects husband to be faithful but tries to change him. She builds his castle on fashion and her reputation with women and disregards his desire for a functional recovery and resting place. She weakens his comfort and daily recovery by insisting to keep a perfect appearance within the home. She tortures him with petty requests to do what she can easily do herself. She commands his presence without respecting his other obligations. She doesn’t respect his family but she wants them to do what she expects. She ranks her children over her man and expects him to peacefully play second fiddle to her music score. She ignores her heart by letting others convince her its undependable to protect and promote her interests. She wants to make sure he knows that her needs and wants are more important than his.

By trying to either be more like men or get them to act more like females, women confuse themselves. They are unable to produce the outcomes they long for. Men wish it were otherwise, but modern women are propagandized to listen to women instead of men. It’s more a gender than individual happening; by blaming men, women escape guilt for causing relationship failures. Much as the radical feminists anticipated it five decades ago.

On the other side of the ledger, the male nature stubbornly rejects feminist theory. Men stick to mostly following their nature, which of course is never all that admirable to women. Men learn in life that particular behaviors annoy the heck out of women and—when inclined to please their woman—they avoid the annoyances. However, when blamed, they easily convince themselves that ‘I don’t appreciate what she does, why please her?’, which pushes them back toward their self-centered, hard-headed, and hard-hearted nature.

So, what else is new? He takes me for granted. He never shows enough affection. His job comes before me. He won’t help with housework. He won’t help enough with the kids. He won’t clean or pick up after himself. He’s a slob around the house. He spends our money on his toys. He’s so selfish he doesn’t know the meaning of ‘us’. He wants sex whether I’m ready or not. He never wants to take my family into consideration. He loves our daughter but expects too much from our son. He thinks I should be able to handle a full-time job and housework with no help and no problems. He talks a good game but doesn’t produce when the chips are down.

Those are symptoms of men who don’t care if they annoy their woman or they purposely do it out of some real or imagined spite. Men aren’t that opposed to cooperation unless they want to save face.

Blaming a man shows disrespect and men tire easily of it. They expect to be respected and appreciated and to measure it by her displays of obvious gratitude, which also endorses his likeability to her and her willingness to be loyal to him.

Thus, the pointy finger of blame continues to mock compatibility and flood the already full swamp of ill-feeling toward the opposite sex.


Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, sex differences

2169. Chivalry — Recovery is Everything and Overdue

If you read the first post on this subject, #2168, why have we as a culture so readily accepted the intentional murder of chivalry at the hands of feminists? More importantly, how do we recover if the feminists were to let us? Or why should we even try?

I talk much about the character and custom-setting deeds of our forebears and how society’s female-friendly standards shrink. Perhaps chivalry could help right our sinking cultural ship, so I describe the road to recovery.

Chivalry indirectly leads to female happiness in one of life’s cause-and-effect natural phenomena. The process that follows is produced by both sexes following their hearts to live according to the natural condition they inherit at birth. It’s what instinct and intuition lead men and women to do naturally. It contributes greatly to general compatibility that leads respectably to enjoyable mating and indirectly to better fulfillment of girlhood hopes and dreams.

However, the practice has to be taught in childhood. That’s right. Both sexes need to have the benefits of following one’s instincts reinforced. God provides no owner’s manual until old enough to study the Bible. So, parents have to close the gap.

Male Nature:

  • Women are born to earn happiness over time. Men are born to earn satisfaction through daily achievements, and chivalry provides significant opportunity for both sexes.
  • His actions generate his feelings. A male who practices chivalry develops over time a deeply-rooted belief that he should unconditionally respect females, which includes the desire to give unconditionally, which enables him to eagerly find favor with a female, which energizes him to put his convenience momentarily at the disposal of a female, which makes him feel good about himself, which earns self-admiration, which provides satisfaction that he did the right thing. His chivalrous actions program his heart with those feelings (so long as the process isn’t interrupted by female signals that his effort isn’t welcome, in which case his will power and determination have to say ‘don’t quit’).
  • To boy or man brought up to be chivalrous, it becomes a duty. They are automatically responsible for distressed or otherwise discombobulated females. Fulfilling one’s duty is not an event that deserves reward, and men don’t appreciate unearned gifts. Consequently, women don’t know much about rewarding a chivalrous act, even though mere acknowledgement is sufficient when a guy does his duty.
  • It’s a hard and fast belief developed in childhood. Teaching boys that females are weaker and, therefore, to be protected makes males feel stronger, which opens the male heart to helping, which opens the door for chivalry, which defines a new duty, which energizes males to earn female favor, which produces a male at her disposal, which makes females feel superior, which puts her in the role of boss, which confirms she’s not the weaker sex, which guys can accept unless it’s verbalized.

Female Nature:

  • As you’ve read so often on this blog, women are born to be happy but they have to earn it. It comes from each woman’s gratitude for herself compounded by gratefulness for others in her life. Treated chivalrously, she becomes grateful for who she is and what she deserves, which adds to her sense of self-importance and ability to pass her gratitude on to others.
  • Chivalrous actions make a female feel superior. Her heart becomes programmed with respect and gratitude, which makes girls and women more grateful for themselves, which contributes to their happiness. Indirectly, chivalrous men help women find happiness. Also, his actions program her heart with respect and appreciation for males.

However, the foundation of chivalry is a delightful charade based on male eagerness to deceive themselves about females. Men are extremely unwilling to acknowledge any superiority to women; it’s inconsistent with their natural sense of dominance. By focusing solely on physical abilities and calling females the weaker sex, men can ‘prove’ to themselves that any superiority attached to the female gender is inconsequential. Chivalry confirms the weakness of one sex, which strokes the ego of men, and lifts any burden from men to admit otherwise. That’s the female-friendly charade that men develop to win female favor, but also to protect their own sense of significance.

Which begs the question, isn’t Feminism designed to highlight the superiority of women? Sure, but it doesn’t work except with the power of government imposed for legal, political, and economic advancements that become toxic when brought into both social and domestic relationships by well-meaning women with unrealistic expectations.

History proves the sexes can live compatibly. Men can’t and won’t do so when women impose their superiority to get their way. Either women keep their superior nature to themselves and avoid reminding men that it even exists, or men resent, resist, and often retaliate. To admit women are superior is to admit manly insignificance, which by nature is a man’s greatest fear that ranks with her fear of abandonment, which is what he does when she goes too far.

I submit that men or boys who are raised to be chivalrous, are not the same males who are abusing and disrespecting women and children on a regular basis. True chivalry, when ingrained in a boy, serves him throughout life. It provides a sense of satisfaction when he is able to help, please, win their favor, or delight women and children. It also serves as an internalized insurance policy against him becoming an abuser. Men can’t hit women, if taught to be chivalrous in boyhood.

Observe these Italian boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OcKQ_mbiQ and watch to the end.

You saw with the Italian boys how easily a charade can be turned into more safety for females. One simple admission, females are weaker, which enables males to ignore female superiority as long as it remains inadmissible as evidence for females to get their way. It’s easily and best taught in childhood. That’s next as this series grows from two to three installments.



Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!

2130. Male Bonding

Sir Eric’s clear and worthy questions at 2127 inspire this post.

Two conquerors face off. He seeks conquest; she seeks marriage. The female nature is willing to change to conquer. But the male nature resists, resents, and even retaliates against changing to please anyone else and especially a woman. (We observe it in toddlers.)

Bonding arises out of the male nature only when tied to something of significant interest. A prospective conquest is of prime significance. Males thus face an internal conflict. To conquer they have to change to please a woman if she won’t easily part with her favors.

Women love and partially bond before conquest, and sex finalizes the process for them. Bonding is not necessary for conquest but mutual bonding is for marriage. Thus, another conflict. Lifetime obligations don’t emerge unless the man changes sufficiently well that mutual bonding occurs.

A man will change provided he has the proper incentive. His self-interest to conquer makes him willing to pay that price. He will change over time to conquer a resisting woman. He will teach himself to please her in order to please himself and vice versa. It starts as desire to conquer but morphs away from sex to her when her fascination and promise for his future outshine his desire to conquer. His pleasing actions become new habits over time and reprogram his heart into believing she’s worth it.

All done in hope of convincing her into bed sooner rather than later. His conquering motivations provide the glue, his actions clamp two self-interests together in mutual bond. Thus, it appears that he changes to please a woman but he doesn’t. He changes to please himself, to facilitate conquering her. Both are beneficiaries of the process that works in two steps when women hold out for marriage.

1) Frustration being the father of invention, men denied first sex together find words of commitment. Further denials of sex bring out greater effort including his conscience to honor his words and thus deepen his commitment. Such commitment, however, doesn’t hold nearly as much adhesive as does the second part of the bonding process which happens over more time.

2) Devotion emerges out of his continued actions that please him for pleasing her, and those actions program his heart with emotions that bond. (The deeper his devotion becomes, however, the more it shifts her toward the alpha role in marriage, which invites her to do wrong things and thus makes it easier for her to screw up their marriage).

Thus, if change is a trap, he’s self-seduced by desire to conquer. By withholding sex, a woman provides the incentive that drives him to change and become capable of bonding well with her.

When her actions work contrary to his intentions, his frustration for first sex turns into the pursuit of sex only and less interest in her. Consequently, her job is to keep him in pursuit, which calls primarily for no sexual relations. Remove that incentive and a man’s bonding is far less likely to solidify into permanent obligation.

I realize the real world doesn’t work like that today. But, I describe the nature of men and women that closes the gap between her natural inheritance to be compatible with a mate and his natural resistance to mate up permanently with only one.



Filed under sex differences

2119. Her Hair: Crowning Glory or …???

It’s time. I’ve put this off for years for fear of losing readers. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

It’s recurrent. Women keep asking what men prefer for the female hairdo. Women concerned with that issue are out of step with Nature and flummox themselves dealing with men. I offer a contrarian view more in accord with both the male and female natures.

Hair is important to women, not men. Men are not that interested in one of a woman’s features. Oh, some men will claim they like to waller their face in a woman’s long hair. But that’s more adolescent than adult behavior. And some praise long stringy hair these days because it’s popular. It generates comfort for men that all women look alike. Popularity keeps single women bowing to masculine tastes.

It may change after a relationship is established and working smoothly. A husband should have some say, about which wife understands what is required to keep the marriage promoted in her favor. She can figure out what’s best for them.

We’ve heard all our lives that hair is a woman’s crowning glory. Glory for whom? Not men. They don’t see glory there. Glory flows from her heart at what she sees, cleans, likes, loves, strokes, pats, combs, dyes, tinges, cuts, and waves until it becomes a useable feature to make herself feel better about herself. Hair care compensates for guilt. It relieves depression when she modifies her vision of herself. It keeps her tied to her mirror, where her independent spirit emerges and she finds solace living with herself. A hundred strokes a night isn’t wasted time or energy; it inflates the female ego.

Her hair is her crowning glory for self-centered reasons: It enables her to glorify herself, promote the image of who she is, elevate her confidence, compensate for low self-esteem, make herself feel good caring for it, express her natural vanity to herself, match up better or differently with her other features, and otherwise reinforce her appearance and roles in life to suit her and no one else. Hair is just a part of her package of prettiness that she aspires to make prettier. Adjusting her hair care practices to please others defeats some objectives in life.

To wear her hair to please men—especially after about age 25 when getting a man becomes problematic—is to push her into other actions to please men, diminish her choices, retreat from single independence, reduce her ability to stand out from other women, and in general curtail her ability to appear unique. When women seek to follow what’s popular, they lose ability to be extraordinary. Which is, of course, what men seek to marry.



Filed under feminine

2006. Trust, Respect, and Competition

This parenthetical thought in #2004 spurred Her Highness Cocoa’s curiosity. “Incidentally, a man’s respect declines for a woman conquered by someone for whom he lacks respect.”

She posed these questions: ”What are the elements that make a man less respect another man? His job? His income? His wife? His attitude and manners??? And once this respect is less or lost can it be restored? Also, do the same principles apply to man respecting a woman?”

For the most part of the male nature, two elements determine one man’s respect for another.

1) Can the observed be trusted according to the trustful values and expectations of the observer? Yes generates respect; no generates little or no respect. The greater the trust perceived, the greater is the respect returned. The higher the trust standards in the observed, the greater the respect of the observer. Dealing with untrustworthy people denies a man the opportunity to earn self-admiration—he never knows where the firm ground lies upon which he can stand. By causing that, untrustworthy people nullify his ability to respect them.

2) Is the observed man the competitive equal or better of the observer? The better the competitive ability of the observed over the observer, the greater the respect the latter has for the former. The greater the observer views his ability to out-compete the observed, the less opportunity he has to earn self-admiration and, therefore, the less respect he has for the observed.

Can loss of respect be restored? Yes. Christian salvation enables men to accept the risk of unconditionally respecting other men until disrespect is earned. Also, enhanced trustworthiness can upgrade respect. If the observed man is not respected for whatever reasons but he showers respect upon the observer, then to the extent that the observer perceives greater trust in the observed, the observer’s respect grows for the observed.

It’s one of life’s fascinating paradoxes. Trust sent one way returns as respect and vice versa. But respect does not beget respect nor does trust beget trust.


Do the same principles apply to man respecting woman? Yes, in the matter of trust. It works the same. a) In the matter of competition, it works the opposite. b) More difficult to explain, she loses New Man’s respect by bad mouthing her ex.

a) His male nature tells a man that he’s the competitive better of a woman, and his dominance confirms his self-admiration. If a woman initiates competition, it’s obvious that she fails to recognize his dominant role, which threatens his sense of self-admiration, which earns his distrust out of fear that he could lose to her, which forces him to admit her as possibly superior, which forces him to show respect for the winner if and when she defeats him. Men can’t admit to losing to a woman, and so they find solace in avoiding it by disrespecting her as soon as she initiates competition. They hope showing disrespect will trigger a change in the female mind to back off the competition, but of course it seldom works that way. But yet, the self-fulfilling prophecy works and his show of disrespect transmutes into real disrespect and weakening of his love.

To men a woman competes and is perfectly respectable trying to conquer a man for marriage before he conquers her for first-time sex. After his conquest, however, further competition weakens his respect and love. His conqueror’s right expects and the female nature delivers her cooperation to the exclusion of competition. Thus, they self-develop according to their natures.

b) I re-quote this from the top. “Incidentally, a man’s respect declines for a woman conquered by someone for whom he lacks respect.” Women favor full disclosure with New Man but it backfires when she describes her past relationships. Not just sexual history either. Bad mouthing her ex broadcasts to New Man that she has poor judgment, knows too little about men, and cannot be trusted to not talk about him if they ever break up. Those factors discourage New Man’s respect for her and a man’s love is based on respect. Consequently, bad mouthing her ex weakens her relationship with New Man.

Nothing in human relations is ever simple. It’s all relative, all cause and effect between the sexes.



Filed under sex differences

2001. Male’s Primal Urge to Conquer Females

This article may shock you. It’s about the most unique aspect of the male nature. The way men are born and before they experience life growing up or associating with women. Before they are trained and pressured by women to hide one trait within their nature, which in turn brings out many causes and effects.

You have your unique modesty. Men have a unique urge for first-time sex with attractive women. When you understand and respect this unique trait in men, you will be better prepared to handle that which often offends girlfriends, lovers, live-ins, and wives.

Every man’s interest is stirred by sexually attractive females. Your man’s reactions to seeing one is NOT automatically a reflection against you. It may be but more likely it’s not if you mean anything to him except for sex. His primal urge is not disloyalty to you. It’s his nature exposing itself, a subconscious urge jumping up before your easily offended eyes. You should ignore it until you find confirming signs of his betrayal of you. Or better yet, be grateful that he chose you. (If you had it once, you must still have it unless you let IT slip away.)

Urge to conquer is one of two actions common to all men. His glance at a moving object is natural (as explained elsewhere) and more than a glance is natural at a sexually attractive female. Your taking offense just adds harmful pressure to your relationship. However, in no way do I alibi for men who take their interest beyond a good look, beyond what their nature prompts and their society-developed character should avoid.

The conquering urge in males causes or produces these effects across relationships and society:

  1. The males’ primal urge to have first-time sex with many women is divorced from female interests. A target’s interests have influence only to the extent that she conditions his thinking to subordinate his nature in order to please her for other things.
  2. His conquering urge is single-mindedness that springs open at sight of a sexually attractive female and repeats itself until a particular target is conquered or disposed of mentally. The urge prevails above and beyond the actual, practical, and even impossible conquests. Social and domestic pressures generated by women cause men to civilize their involuntary urges into more compatible and female-friendly behavior.
  3. The urge to conquer stands disconnected from warm and kind feelings. However, emotional connections with sex targets develop as a woman’s refusal to yield to conquest spurs his frustrations into delving deeper into her psyche.
  4. Whether dating or courting, he looks for weaknesses to facilitate conquest. Accidentally, serendipitously, or purposely programmed by her, he discovers qualities of vital interest to him. Those he comes to admire are considered virtues. Wanting to marry a virtuous woman, the more virtues he finds before conquest, the more promising she looks as potential mate. That places her higher on the ‘keeper spectrum’, and so he chooses to spend more time with her rather than just vanish. What determines the outcome? How she conducts their relationship before conquest such that her worth as potential mate outweighs his urge to conquer. Effectively, she waters down his urge with her feminine mystique, female modesty, virtuous fascination, and monogamous spirit plus a gigantic patience and immense likeability that he thrives on whether it’s obvious or not.
  5. Civilizing influences and social and domestic pressures tame male sexual aggression. Men are pressured to hold in check and disguise their conquering urge. Exploiting female innocence and desire for romance, men manage to harmonize it with social interactions.
  6. Romance opens the door to her heart, which cracks open the door to earlier conquest, which stirs men to be romantic although it’s foreign to the male nature. So, romance forces men to go against their nature in order to conquer according to their nature. (Another reason that both sexes fail to understand the other.)
  7. After conquest he’s a different man relative to the conquered. First, conquest releases his nature to consider other targets. His primal urge is reinvigorated. Second, he views the just-conquered woman in a totally different light. The spectrum runs from marriage to immediate disappearance with these possibilities in between: romance her, probable keeper, friend, booty, dumpee. The choice he makes depends upon the pre-conquest relationship that she as the expert was able to develop.
  8. With each woman conquered, his life changes relative to her. Whatever relationship developed before that, it will be different afterward. Whereas he expected and responded to her competitive spirit, especially to protect her sexual assets, he expects it to end. He afterward expects her cooperation sans competition. Discovering new virtues in her is both harder and slower after conquest, because he’s no longer looking for weaknesses. Effectively, the respect she earned before conquest is the level of respect she will enjoy subsequently. This is the real enigma of conquest: She is no bigger or better than what he conquered. She doesn’t lose anything; he just doesn’t recognize much more worth in her until a lengthy and happy marriage teaches him otherwise. (Now, obviously there’s a measure of hyperbole in that claim. But the essence is true. A woman’s worth as a woman—as opposed to her worth to him—is generally the worth she earns defending her sexual assets.)
  9. The conquering urge lasts for life. It can only be tamed and women must do the taming. The intensity fades later in life but the sight of a sexually attractive female stimulates his interest long after age-related practicality or marital obligations prevent anything else.*

Consequently, women know so little about the male nature that they—even as the relationship experts—misplay the dating and courtship agendas.

If wife gets jealous because husband looks at attractive women, she should judge on what he does and not what he thinks momentarily. She’s no less valuable to him; he just reacts instinctively. To her it’s simple-thoughtlessness. To him its single-mindedness inherited at birth. To be sure, men should train themselves to be less offensive in their natural habits, but many men just don’t respect women generally or their woman in particular enough to do that.

Men are born with the primal urge to conquer as many as practical. It’s up to women to learn how to exploit it rather than be victimized. Don’t you at least suspect that our ancestor women developed the institution of marriage to at least check and hopefully check mate the male nature?


*Several years ago I renewed a dormant friendship with a school chum (both are 83). A couple of visits, dozens of emails, and exchanges of opinion on common-interest subjects brought not one mention of attractive women. Both of us became widowers this year. In the past few days we have exchanged several emails on the subject of sexually attractive women. Oh, not speculating anything. Just that particularly noticeable ones improve the appeal of TV (from which I have weaned myself for other reasons). Even as octogenarians, female attractiveness attracts because the primal urge never dies. Hope wilts but not the urge.



Filed under courtship